Whereas for some people the “wall” might be the need to make a living wage, for Dyer, the wall seems to be anything that prevents him “making a mark on the world.” I’m not entirely sure what he means by that, but I get the impression that he thinks he has important things to say, which he wants other people to listen to.

He’s not dismissing the possibility that someone who writes in order to get their important message out to the world might also make money, but he doesn’t think money should be the top priority. Nonetheless, I think he’s seeing the situation in very stark dichotomies – either wh*re or artist. I can think of at least one other option.

Maybe some writers are very skilled seducers of the public. They aren’t just selling the public what they think the public wants. Rather, by ensuring that their novels are attractive to readers, they make it more likely that their works will actually make “their mark on the world,” because more of “the world” will actually read those novels. Julie mentioned Dickens, and I think he’s a very good example of an author who was hugely popular, who knew very well how to appeal to his public, but who also made a “mark on the world” by exposing the extreme poverty that marred the society of his day.

I absolutely agree with you – and yes, i detect a whiff of chauvinism too. Or even a strong pong.

Glad I’m in such good company.

It’s an old argument precipitated on romantic ideas, and it’s interesting he uses such gendered language to make it. Do I detect a hint of “writer”=”artist”=”male” vs “whore” which is generally female?

I like the idea of back-against-the-wall writing. I just don’t think one sort precludes the other, or that one is right and the other morally wrong.